Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Freedom Is a Tricky Thing
“The Republican Party is broken,” writes Brandi Love, a self-identified “Conservative PornStar who writes for the Federalist,” according to her Twitter bio. Brandi was an attendee of Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit. A conservative gathering for the young, hip, and constitutionally-minded designed to galvanize future conservative leaders. The summit features many of the stars of the conservative movement from the Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles to Dr. Ben Carson.
According to the TPUSA website:
Turning Point USA’s Student Action Summit is an invite-only event primarily intended for students between the ages of 15 and 26. If you are an adult wishing to attend, we have a limited number of adult tickets available.
Brandi Love was the holder of one of those limited adult tickets.
She publicized that she would be going live from her hotel at the conference on her website onlybrandi.com. She added she would be doing so, “behind the paywall of my OnlyFans (So we don’t offend the low T white nationalist religious zealots.)”
She later had her invitation revoked, and the chasm between what Brandi defines as “conservatives” and “social conservatives” was revealed.
She accused Twitter commenters who disagreed with her of “once again mixing Social Conservatism and Conservatism.”
The question arises, is there a viable conservative movement that precludes social conservatism?
You can spot a TPUSA student from a mile away in their “Big Gov Sucks” masks and hip t-shirts with slogans like “save the bees and the republic.” Self-described, TPUSA is the “community organizers of the right.” The end goal, according to their mission, is the promotion of freedom.
Freedom is a tricky thing. It is seen as both a means and an end. Freedom is a prerequisite for a moral society, and simultaneously it is impossible to maintain freedom without a moral populace.
The question to wrestle with is why be free? If freedom itself is the aim, then it feels disingenuous to exclude Brandi Love from the TPUSA event. In the most basic meaning of the word, shouldn’t she be free to attend? This is the hypocrisy Brandi has taken to Twitter to point out.
Perhaps, we as conservatives have made a mistake in our messaging– inviting more into the fold and expanding the conservative base at the risk of losing the soul of what we set out to do.
What did we set out to do?
Win elections? By all means, bring in as many people as possible. It’s a numbers game and we need them all.
Beat the Democrats? Again, a numbers game. Bring them all on.
Restore human decency, order, and alignment with creation? We have slipped off track.
Freedom itself is not an end; it’s a doorway. There are many things I do not want the freedom to do:
The freedom to take a life.
The freedom to abuse a child.
The freedom to buy and sell my sexuality and the sexuality of others.
As our founders knew, to pursue the highest life, we needed freedom. But what good is freedom if it is used to justify baseness?
The natural end of the libertarian leanings of the conservative movement is virtueless anarchy–a world where we not only allow, but accommodate and support that which we know to be destructive.
There is a balance to strike between supporting the freedom of others, while not allowing what they do with their freedom to define the entire movement. There is the possibility for nuance. That is, as long as we are honest about our aims.
I aim for a high-minded society (that is, a society working to create heaven on earth) full of healthy people working in conjunction with creation and the creator. Freedom is a wonderful vehicle for that aim.
The totalitarian Soviet Union denied their citizens freedom which prevented them from achieving a higher ideal. In that case, freedom was still a doorway, and once it shut, the people were hard-pressed to rise above depravity.
But freedom is a doorway, nonetheless, on the way to something bigger than even freedom itself. There lies the rallying call of the conservative movement. It is a call to restore order–a call to connect to higher ideals.
Perhaps the message isn’t simply “come as you are,” but rather, “come as you are and then get better.” We can ask each other to enter the doorway of freedom and then keep walking. In that way, the movement is not a fold that holds as many sheep as possible, but rather a launching pad to a more meaningful life.
The religious world is also stuck in the doorway, grappling with the same problem as the conservative movement. The youth in the faith have had enough of “coffee house Christianity” and the like. They see through the baseless and easygoing self-help teachings and are begging to move past the elementary — to be pushed, to expand their knowledge, and to aim higher.
The modern church thought it would bring in more people if the church more resembled everywhere else. In doing so, they have destroyed the sanctity of the Holy Spaces and reduced the pursuit of faith to Chicken Soup for the Soul. (A book I loved as a young girl, by the way, but no substitute for in-depth spiritual studies.)
The conservative movement, like the church, has attempted to behave like the audience they want to reach in an effort to grow the base. In doing so, the members they recruit are denied any opportunities for growth, challenge, and pursuit of higher ideals.
Comfort and weak-minded inclusion of all ideas is the best friend who justifies your drinking problem. She expresses friendship but ensures you never overcome your addiction.
This is, of course, a more ideological than political discussion. Many conservatives embrace the big tent philosophy to win elections. But the conservative movement does not end (or even begin) at the ballot box.
This is not an argument to avoid allyship. As the common saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I believe that wholeheartedly. I love to see the unexpected alliances rising to defeat damaging Marxist ideas and their various manifestations. I pursue these allyships, as we all should. But if our movement is unable to be inclusive while simultaneously holding our standards, then what good do we offer the people we are including anyway?
What good is a conservative movement that doesn’t address the whole of a human being–political, spiritual, economic, relational?
If conservatism doesn’t stand for the American family–an institution proven over and over again to benefit us and our neighbors, then why have a movement?
If conservatism can’t stand for the sacredness of human sexuality, then why have a movement?
If the conservative movement is just about electing the right people, or worse, a cloaked and seductive march towards anarchy, then why have a movement?
As we become wrapped up in the game of growth, the game of numbers, we have to stay connected to why we do what we do–to what end?
I argue that freedom alone is not a satisfying end.
Of course, our founders took for granted that freedom would provide the platform for the more important work of maintaining a moral society deserving of that freedom in the first place. The opinions of the faith were so commonplace they were considered self-evident. In fact, the faith of early Americans is what made freedom self-evident.
But freedom is a tricky thing, and what we do with it matters.
Mikayla Goetz is a renegade actress turned conservative storyteller. Since receiving her B.F.A. in Theatre Arts from Coastal Carolina University, Mikayla has worked as a story developer, writer, and consultant with armed service members, veterans, and Jewish-Ukrainian refugees. She has led the development of plays, film work, community initiatives, and an audio series. Mikayla is the Host of the SomethingBurger Podcast and a regular voice on AM 950-Orlando.
Published in Culture
Mike Pence often says that he is a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican in that order. Well me too, except that I’d add “an American” in second place.
[redacted – off topic]
You have it in your head too much that the ground that the left takes can be taken back.
And that it doesn’t do more damage, even in the meantime, than Trump’s supposed “cult of personality.”
Also, think about this: If Trump had won (as reported, which I think he really did), 1/6 wouldn’t have happened.
So, I think I’ll blame 1/6 (to the extent someone wants to believe it was so awful) on people like Gary who should have voted for Trump, but didn’t, for their own selfish reasons.
You’ve never explained how voting for someone worse than Trump in all the ways you claim Trump is and won’t implement any conservative policies was the right move. You don’t like Trump’s boorish manners and mean words. Biden helped make Bork a verb, led the “high tech lynching of Justice Thomas”, continued to call the man involved in his first wife’s fatal car accident a drunk after being told many times it wasn’t true, just to name three quickly off the top of my head. You kept telling us for four years that Trump’s father had Alzheimer’s and it’s only a matter of time before Trump starts showing the signs. Biden was displaying early signs of dementia during the campaign and it’s only getting worse now that he’s been installed.
For every negative in your Trump column it is worse in the Biden column. The few positives you grant Trump (judges, taxes, etc.) are also negatives in the Biden column. Why was Biden the right choice?
Guys, don’t let this thread be hijacked! We avoided it after an attempt was made earlier. Let’s continue with the actual subject.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not very many others, actually, if history is any guide ;)
You were responding directly to a comment of mine, and you started out with the words “The biggest problem we seem to get from that [which I–not unreasonably, I think– took to mean the thoughts expressed in my comment] is the building impression that . . . ” followed by an unsupportable assertion of your thoughts about what my words might have meant. I clarified for you the actual meaning (which is quite consonant with the literal meaning), rather than leaving it up to any mistaken impression you or others might get from my comment. I’m not responsible for a misinterpretation of my words, but given the chance to correct it, I generally fall on the side of “do it.” So I did.
Much better, not because I necessarily agree with the totality of it, but because it’s an actual position. And, BTW, I do agree with @franco that “Brandi Love” (IMHO a shameless self-promoter and attention pig) is a poor test case for most of this discussion, as should be quite clear from my comments earlier in the thread.
I’m afraid the fact that I am labeled by one side as a raving Trumpster, and by the other as not pure enough to be considered reliable, isn’t something that stops me speaking my mind, no matter how irritating a few may find it. Those entrenched on the far reaches of both sides are probably beyond help and won’t be moved; but I think that there are quite a few who can be picked off along the continuum. At least, in my person-to-person, IRL, interactions, I’ve found that to be the case with a number of my acquaintances, several of whom I’ve been able to nudge in a more healthy (that is, rightward) direction over the last three or four years. I think that’s likely a more productive use of my time.
Because Reasons.
I said this before, but if you want to see what the Biden win has wrought for the country and desperate illegal immigrants, watch the Wednesday Hannity. You may have it on demand on your cable system.
I think you are the same side I am.
Moderator’s Note:
Gary, there is no mention of Trump in this post. This comment is clearly an attempt to hijack the post. Please have some self-restraint.
Nah, too judgmental to be an actual Christian.
Dear Mod,
While the original post did not include Trump in it, the comments then veered into the Bushes and Compassionate Conservatism, and attacks on NT’s and NAT’s. I was following those comments. That having been said, I respect your authority in this area, and will exit this thread.
Gary
He says, after in effect duplicating one of his NT comments AGAIN…
Pathetic
One of the fundamentals about freedom, is the freedom to be wrong.
Free people have a right to associate freely with people as they choose, even if it is wrong.
Yeah I haven’t forgotten anything. I did use the word “massive” above, meaning it wasn’t a front and center part of his campaign, all the time.
I agree that they’ll still come out. They’ll do that no matter who is running and likely vote the ticket.
I didn’t mean that Tump was making overt appeals to evangelicals (although he did that too), I meant that evangelicals found him appealing and not simply the least bad option. He was speaking to issues that evangelicals and socons care about in a way that the others were not. He was signaling that he would fight the culture war instead of the organized retreat we’ve seen the last several decades.
He also didn’t appear to hate them the way Dems do.
He even showed up at church one time just to ask them to pray for him.
The pastor of that church immediately had to defend the act of praying over someone like President Trump.
Unlike the folks at TPUSA with regard to Ms Love.
I don’t think she was asking for prayers and I very much doubt she would have welcomed the laying on of hands Donald Trump received — unless she was paid for it up front.
She could also get paid in the back end of the deal.
Oh dear. . . Now I am a little old church lady.
I couldn’t resist.
Well, I guess I started it. Must. learn. to. live. with. consequences.
To be fair he did add “as they see it,” to the blue-nose accusation. I didn’t see it as an acceptance.
I read this after reading your intro this afternoon and as a long time lurker let me say welcome. You made some good points and I look forward to reading more. You can already sense the “but” can’t you? It’s a small one.
I’m sure you could dig through my writing here and at other sites and catch me having used the slippery slope article because pretty much everyone does but I try to avoid it. Your claim the the natural end of libertarian leanings within the conservative movement leads to anarchy doesn’t hold up – my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.
I see the natural end of the libertarian leanings being a more libertarian government not unhitched from what we think of now as conservatism. Charles Cooke has an interesting take on the concept in his book The Conservitarian Manifesto. It’s a good read. But if we look at various political philosophies and see them as goals in themselves rather than a path to an absolutist ideology the slippery slope argument fails. Anarchy is not libertarianism. If it is legitimate that libertarian urges frighten traditional conservatives on the unproven assumption that such leads to anarchy, couldn’t big government progressives argue that small government conservatism leads to libertarianism leads to anarchy. This gives the totalitarian a-do-what-I say or it eventually leads to anarchy argument.
Funnily enough, the US started with a pretty libertarian bent. If it led to anarchy we should have seen it. Instead we get a government that has employees who mandate tags on mattresses and how much water you get in your toilet.
The slippery slope argument has it’s uses, but I think it gets deployed too often where it does no good and weakens a case. I think the natural end of advocacy for libertarian ideas is libertarianism. Pair the libertarian ideas with conservative ideas and I think you fall somewhere in-between, not anarchy. I’m making tomato sauce right now. The natural end of turning on the stovetop burners is hot pasta, not burning down the house. Sure, the house could burn, but it’s not enough of a worry not to pursue the delicious and edifying pinnacle of dining which is a well made tomato based concoction.
Again, I look forward to reading more and congratulations on the new gig.
It’s best when it’s used as an argument rather than as a fallacy.
It takes some evidence. “Don’t shoot up. You’ll end up addicted.” That has some evidence to back it up. “Listen to jazz and you’ll end up a junky.” Not so much
Probably the most common situations where “slippery slope” is an argument, not a fallacy, are when things don’t have to just “slip” down the “slippery slope,” they’re actually being PUSHED down the slope, especially by the left.
It’s also good when it provokes people to explain what would stop us from sliding all the way to the logical or complete conclusion. Sometimes there are scruples to keep people from going all the way to the killing fields, for example, while other people have no such scruples.